President Obama is mounting a rhetorical campaign to seek “common ground” between pro-life and “pro-choice” Americans. At Notre Dame, he said,
“Let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies… Let’s provide care and support for women
who do carry their children to term.”
The White House has continued this campaign by inviting organizations on both sides of the abortion
debate to meet with White House staff. Peter Sprigg, our Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, represented FRC at one such meeting yesterday. The terms
of the discussion were drawn narrowly, to include only the time periods before a woman becomes pregnant and after a woman has
decided to carry her pregnancy to term.
Even within these constraints, Peter challenged the inconsistencies of the administration’s
positions. He pointed out that abstinence education can help reduce unintended pregnancies—yet the President has cut almost all funding for it. He
noted that pregnancy resource centers support women who carry their babies to term—but Obama’s proposed cuts in cuts in charitable deductions will
hurt those nonprofits.
In answer to a question about reducing abortion, Obama staffers Joshua DuBois and Tina Tchen made it clear–the
President’s goal is not to reduce the number of abortions. It is to reduce “the need for abortion” (mostly by widespread
distribution of taxpayer-funded contraception through groups like Planned Parenthood that do not deplore teen sex). The White House website says,
“The President believes we must all come together to help reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.”
The idea that there
is sometimes a need to kill an innocent unborn child is chilling. Even President Bill Clinton said that abortion should be “safe, legal, and
rare.” Obama is unwilling to say it should be “rare.” In fact, the “need for abortion” language explains the logic behind his desire to federally
fund abortions. He believes there are women who “need” abortions, but aren’t getting them because they can’t afford them.
For President
Obama, it’s not only unacceptable to protect unborn life legally, but it is becoming clear that it is unacceptable even to influence a woman to
“choose” life, through incremental pro-life laws like those requiring informed consent or parental involvement for minors. If there is any “common
ground” between those who support the right to life and those who support a “right” to abortion, it ought to be these modest measures—but that is
ground upon which President Obama refuses to stand.
Don’t be fooled by the conciliatory rhetoric about “common ground.” Barack Obama
believes women “need” to have abortions, and judging by his actions, he intends to make sure that they get them.
Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council. This article was excerpted from the Washington Update that he compiles for the FRC.
